Thank you for the link. I know Ryan Grim at HuffPo had some wild number, so I was wondering if that was the one you were referring to. I think Silver has the best model as he weighs more variables. Occasionally 10 to 1 shots pay off (except when I bet on them).You underestimate the size of animal rights activists. But then so does AOC.
At the time of his inauguration Trump had something like 3,500 legal cases going at the same time. Just because somebody makes an accusation doesn't mean whatever said is true. See Brett Kavanaugh.
Due process isn't a concept you embrace much, is it?
I think her resume is spectacular.
I don't see the 'shadiness' the way you do. Trump has an enterprise with global reach.. and he put himself out there in public ways most business people don't... from gambling to Television. He attracts a ton of attention and everything that goes along with it. Settling claims generally comes down to a business decision. Cases fought on principle are generally the one's that are the most expensive.
He's clearly not the former and so far hasn't been proven to be the latter.
I remember seeing the NY Time meter (Needle?) in the 95% range for Hillary the morning of the election. Nate Siler was considered a heretic at the time because he was showing something in the mid-70's.
Virtually all the major vote forecasters, including Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight site, The New York Times Upshot and the Princeton Election Consortium, put Mrs. Clinton’s chances of winning in the 70 to 99 percent range.
I appreciate the response, but I think we have made our stances clear. I hope someone like Haley is nominated by the GOP. I think her strategy to get democrats to hate her instead of being a moderate who might woo independent voters is her best primary strategy. Otherwise, she is going to get Huntsman'd.
It is like 2018 never happened.To this day Democrats have no idea why Hillary lost and have no intention of looking into it. It's why they will lose in November.